QED 109: said the cricket to the thrush (left and democracy)

Two days ago we wrote :

and actually the response of the Romanian voters goes naturally in the direction indicated, like water follows the slope of a mountain: that of increasing the consensus of the party opposed by the system.

Good, but not very well, first of all because 41% is not 67% (but we know how to make do!).

Then because I imagine that the repressive response has already started: we will (obviously) talk about Russian hackers , social manipulation, propaganda, etc., forgetting that democracy is propaganda, and that the moment you preclude the freedom to carry out propaganda, you preclude democracy.

What was this ( taken from this site )?

I don't think it can be defined as a rational, aseptic and politically correct exposition of political positions, right? Perhaps it would be more correct to define it as the search for an irrational emotional response, right?

So propaganda has always been there, conducted with greater or lesser sophistication (preferably with less, given that its objective is precisely to capture the emotional consensus of the majority), and no one has taken issue with it to the point of denying its legitimacy: simply, everyone has done their own thing! Which is what others have always been doing on unified networks (and cinema screens, and editorial products), saturating any space and if only by denying us the possibility of opposing our arguments.

The left's contempt for democracy is radical and incurable because it is primarily and ante omnia contempt for the demos . Now, for goodness sake, it's not like I'm an example of empathy and identification with the events and passions of the working classes: I've never seen a Sanremo festival or a football match (except those of the national team, suffered as a child)! The point, however, is another: no matter how programmatically aristocratic I may be, it would never occur to me to demand the reading of the score (or "anti-fascism") exam from anyone approaching the polls, nor to tell the voter openly that he is a moron because he lets himself be influenced by TokTok shorts , and this is because I don't believe that the septiclavius ​​is a necessary prerequisite for reading reality, nor that voters are big children. (despite the fact that they have to suffer the puerile ethicalizing narration of refined technicians who talk about good and bad debt, and similar nonsense, which in fact they reject).

Denying legitimacy to propaganda (that of others, of course, which no one renounces their own!) means calling the voter an idiot, expecting him not to notice and expecting, otherwise, that he is grateful for the attention of those who want to save him from himself!

How did we arrive at such a leap in quality, the one whereby in the name of democracy the substance of democracy is denied (today electoral propaganda, tomorrow free voting – preferably paper – at the polls)? I believe the answer is simple: because the level of conflict has increased. Now the problem is no longer identified in the fact that the voter chooses badly (depending on your point of view: choose the Cossacks, or choose Truman!). Today the problem is seen in the fact that the voter chooses!

It shouldn't be difficult to understand why, considering a fact that is not only symbolic: the long process of delegitimization of politics with what is now openly recognized by its authors as a coup d'état :

here it starts in sync with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, which establishes the divorce between the Treasury and the Bank of Italy and the definitive abandonment of Europe to the logic of the third globalization, to an institutional structure in which the holder of the political direction is the Market. In the world in which the Market governs, because governments have deprived themselves of an essential instrument of economic policy, they have surrendered what had been, over the long millennia of history, one of the two constitutive factors of sovereignty, i.e. the power to mint money, it is clear that the paths must be defined in other places than the political ones and are functional to other logics: global, i.e. supranational, logics, with respect to which the simple idea that a people can self-determine is objectively subversive, however much it may be proclaimed in a more or less solemn way by the various national Grundnorms . We know what it is, we know what conflict we are involved in: in a colonial war, fought, like almost all colonial wars, to appropriate raw materials. The raw material in this case is savings, which we want to remove, in the name of efficiency, from public intermediation, managed by governments, directed by voters, and carried out through the pension, healthcare, education system, etc., to deliver it in a totalitarian way to private intermediation (despite the fact that this process, by widening inequality, inevitably leads to crises of demand, or of overproduction, whatever you prefer, according to mechanisms described for example here ).

Now, I understand that this shift in front can bewilder someone, opening up the petulant old story according to which today "the left and the right no longer exist", and so on postocommunisting.

I make an observation: the strategies of a totalitarian regime with which the attempt to save us from a hypothetical totalitarian regime is concretely implemented are now visible, they are applied in a brazen, blatant way. The inhibitory brakes have fallen, there is no concern for maintaining appearances, and this cannot fail to disturb the conscience of the progressives, whose first moral imperative has always been the defense of bon ton usque ad effusionem sanguinis (from Rosa Luxemburg to Lina Sotis it was a moment…) To quell an unlikely, but not impossible, outburst of indignation, they are reassured by saying that evil is done (as usual) for a good purpose, perpetrated to save us from fasheesm. The purpose of this continuous bombardment, of these caricatural and petulant requests for abjuration, of this insistent reference to the experience of historical totalitarianisms, of which an ethical and fable-like representation is infallibly given (the struggle of Good against Evil, the Austrian house painter who was bad because his mother didn't kiss him goodnight – without considering that to heal such traumas there is an alternative to the extermination of entire populations, and that is to write a successful novel ), or, even worse, the objective assumptions are falsely told (the usual lie according to which Nazism was caused by the Weimar inflation, when everyone now knows that it was determined by Brüning's austerity, to the point that even that vile and conformist clergy that is the academic profession cannot hide it :

while the Weimar wheelbarrows still whiz by in our television parterres …), in short: the purpose for which this overwhelming, ramified, subtle, omnipresent propaganda apparatus is activated to arouse alarm is twofold. On the one hand, as we were saying, this propaganda serves to strengthen progressives in the belief that they are the good ones, that they are on the right side, and therefore, as such, that they can allow themselves exactly the same practices that they historically deprecated in the bad guys, practices that the bad guys could not allow themselves because they were on the wrong side, while the good guys can naturally implement, being on the right side. A somewhat naive reasoning, within the reach of those minds whose simplicity goes to the point of considering themselves refined. On the other hand, the specter of historical totalitarianism is raised to prevent a series of more or less progressive right-thinking people from asking themselves a question: "But is it right that a people is prevented from deciding for itself?" and give yourself the right answer: "No!". What we want to establish, in short, is the principle that if you believe that a people has the right to self-determination, then you want the Shoah, you are a monster, you have no dignity as an interlocutor, you are Evil, you are a Nazi.

The double paradox will not escape you. First: this degrading treatment is inflicted on voters precisely by those who have implemented policies similar to those that led to historical Nazism, i.e. austerity policies (see the extract above, and if you are interested also the literature reported by the cited article). Second: the blaming of patriotism is carried out as an instrument of political struggle precisely by that political party (the progressives) who believe they have the sole mandate of patriotism, but only one day a year, April 25th, the day in which they boast of having let that Nazism out of the door which then, as we know, they let back in through the window.

Now, the fact that the percentages of those who decide to take the side of Evil, paying a reputational cost in front of their conscience and their knowledge, are growing demonstrates that this little game doesn't attack, that everyone stinks of this barbaric domination. In short, it is the argument, in some ways well-founded, that elu ei made yesterday:

and what another friend of ours who I won't name has been doing for years when he says that: "Once you've decided that you're on the right, the road is all downhill!", alluding to the fact that, finally, on the right you can say that the sky is blue and the lawn is green, without having to draw swords and without suffering, as we have suffered here too, the censorship of those who in theory think like you. That liberating movement that sanctioned Vannacci's success, so to speak.

But precisely here I see two reasons for concern, which I give you in closing this homily.

The first is that the descent is taken too fast, that the breaking of the inhibitory brakes by the useful idiots of bourgeois cosmopolitanism promotes a symmetrical one on the part of the patriots. In short, that we insensibly move from the provocative and liberating " Enough with this fascism! " of our friend Daniele to something more, to nostalgia, in the name of the invocation of a now unknown evil as liberation from a known evil, or even to revisionism, on the basis of the not devoid of plausibility principle according to which if they tell us so many lies about today, during a conflict that still has no winners (see the tweet cited above), who knows how many they could tell us about a conflict that is now remote and which has seen defeaters. This must be avoided. We must remember that we are against the left because the left is austerity, that is, Nazism, because the left is the denial of freedom of expression, that is, Nazism, because the left is contempt for the sovereignty of peoples, that is, Nazism. We must remember not to identify ourselves, not even for a second, not even in an understandable moment of desperation, with what we intend to fight, not so much because this would give our enemy the opportunity to demonize our commitment (he is already doing so), but because we must be clear about the direction in which we want to go.

The second reason for concern is more immediate and concrete. Today I'm stuck in bed by a witch attack (I have to remember that the years are not the ones I feel, but those of the calendar…) and so I wanted to write this post from my mobile phone. It wasn't possible. When I wanted to insert the first screenshot of this post into the blogger mobile interface, I received this nice response:

and there was no way. On a second try, the blogger interface didn't even show me the images that were in the photo library. I then saved them as favorites, "hearting" them. In this way I was able to find (in the favorites folder) the images that were not shown to me in the library, and then ask mobile blogger to upload them, but the response was the one you see above. At this point, amidst atrocious pain and equally atrocious litanies, I got hold of my PC, opened it, and tried to paste the screenshots from iCloud, but (surprise?) the screenshots mentioning the Romanian vote didn't arrive on iCloud (two hours later!):

and then they went to get them from me on Twitter using the desktop interface (where everything seems to be working).

Moral: print the posts that interest you, because sooner or later, Ciamp or no Ciamp, they will bring us down. Much will depend on what the United States wants to do when it grows up, a topic on which we have discussed at length, but if it gives me so much even the passionate appeals in defense of free speech could be merely tactical, they could reflect, rather than an intimate conviction on the part of those who, being masters of the platforms, are masters of the discourse, a move to put in difficulty those who have gone out of balance in such a visible way as to be counterproductive, in fact, for the control of the discourse. That the use of the ballot box can be formally denied is an eventuality that we must now consider plausible, but which remains remote. I fear it is much more likely that a blog that has contributed to changing the political picture of the country will go out like a light bulb. When it happens we will find other ways to stay in touch, but in the meantime remember: the card resists blackouts!

Meanwhile, let's see how it will end in Romania: fortunately, at the moment our enemies are distracted by other things, but the artificial intelligence is alive and fighting for them…